At its meeting on 10 January 2024, the Executive Committee RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL that establishment of a Community Infrastructure Levy Joint Committee with the Terms of Reference as set out at Appendix 1 to the report, including the pooling of strategic Community Infrastructure Levy monies by Cheltenham Borough, Gloucester City and Tewkesbury Borough Councils be APPROVED; that the amended Infrastructure List, as set out at Appendix 2 to the report, be APPROVED for publication; and that engagement with a wide range of infrastructure providers e.g. NHS, emergency services, Environment Agency be ENDORSED in order to identify any wider infrastructure priorities to be considered by the Community Infrastructure Levy Joint Committee.

85.6          At its meeting on 10 January 2024, the Executive Committee recommended to Council that establishment of a Community Infrastructure Levy Joint Committee with the Terms of Reference as set out at Appendix 1 to the report, including the pooling of strategic Community Infrastructure Levy monies by Cheltenham Borough, Gloucester City and Tewkesbury Borough Councils be approved; that the amended Infrastructure List, as set out at Appendix 2 to the report, be approved for publication; and that engagement with a wide range of infrastructure providers e.g. NHS, emergency services, Environment Agency be endorsed in order to identify any wider infrastructure priorities to be considered by the Community Infrastructure Levy Joint Committee.

85.7          The report which was considered by the Executive Committee had been circulated with the Agenda for the current meeting at Pages No. 53-74.

85.8          As Chair of the Executive Committee, the Leader of the Council proposed the recommendation of the Executive Committee and it was seconded by the Lead Member for Built Environment.  The Leader of the Council advised that this was a joint approach, working with Cheltenham Borough and Gloucester City Councils to deliver the strategic infrastructure required for the whole area to serve all three communities, for example, a new waste depot.  He stressed that decisions would be by consensus so all three authorities would need to agree and no one could be outvoted.  In terms of the Infrastructure List, this was an ongoing list which could be amended and added to – it was to be borne in mind that it was not for smaller infrastructure for communities which could otherwise be met through Section 106 contributions and, in any case, Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) funding was sadly not enough to meet all infrastructure needs.  The Lead Member for Built Environment advised that the report sought Council’s support for the establishment of a Community Infrastructure Levy Joint Committee to provide governance for the allocation of the strategic infrastructure part of CIL receipts collected by the three partner councils and recommended approval of the Terms of Reference for the Joint Committee, as set out at Appendix 1 to the report; pooling of strategic CIL infrastructure funding by the three partner councils; publication of the amended Infrastructure List, as set out at Appendix 2 to the report, and engagement with a wider range of infrastructure providers to identify other priorities for consideration by the Joint Committee for inclusion on the Infrastructure List.  The Terms of Reference included the following requirements: an agreement to pool funding, subject to a periodic review; consensus of all three partner councils for proposed allocations; decisions and reviews to be reported to the Executive Committee or Cabinet; agreement of the joint Infrastructure List as part of the Infrastructure Funding Statement in December each year; agreement of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan, updated to support the joint Strategic and Local Plan (SLP) and; for Gloucestershire County Council to attend meetings but have no voting rights or scrutiny of bids for funding.  Members would recall that when CIL funding was received it went into three pots: up to 5% may be used for administrative costs, either 15% or 25%, depending on whether a Neighbourhood Development Plan was in place, must be passed to the parish in which the development took place; and the remaining 70-80% must be spent in accordance with Regulation 59 of the CIL Regulations 2010 for the provision, replacement, operation or maintenance of infrastructure to support the development of its area – it was the third pot that was proposed to be pooled.  In terms of the Infrastructure List set out at Appendix 2 to the report, an amendment had been made to the version approved for publication in December 2023 at the request of Gloucestershire County Council to the pipeline of projects requiring more work to identify costs, as such, the title of the final section ‘Projects not to be funded from CIL’ had been removed, with the three projects that had been identified under that category being included in the group of ‘shared’ projects.  Lastly, with regard to wider engagement, the Infrastructure List included only local authority priorities, therefore, a wider targeted exercise was proposed with key stakeholders such as the NHS, emergency services, utilities, Environment Agency, Sports England and others to identify other priorities for consideration by the Joint Committee.

85.9          With Tewkesbury Borough being largely rural in nature, a Member questioned how it was proposed to manage the risk that priorities for CIL spend would be biased towards the urban infrastructure requirements.  In response, the Leader of the Council advised that it was incumbent upon them to ensure the funding was used to serve Tewkesbury Borough Council residents primarily whilst being mindful of the holistic strategic infrastructure for the area; he had already made reference to a waste depot as an example of strategic infrastructure which would benefit all communities.  A Member asked how each part of the borough would get its fair share given that some had experienced significantly more residential development than others and therefore had greater need for infrastructure to support that growth, for instance, Brockworth desperately needed a GP surgery.  The Leader of the Council was sympathetic to the needs of Brockworth but all communities would have their own strains and pressures and the CIL pot would not be able to solve all infrastructure needs.  As a local authority, it was important to utilise Section 106 monies and to ensure that developers were being held accountable for their commitments.  He would be happy to work with Members on an individual basis to see what more could be done to address any specific issues.

85.10        Another Member sought clarification as to the statement that decisions would be made by consensus and was advised that decisions had to be unanimous so there would not be a situation where two authorities could outvote the third partner.  A Member asked how that would work in practice and what would happen if a consensus could not be reached.  The Chief Executive explained that, ultimately, the partnership would dissolve and another mechanism would need to be introduced for how to use CIL money; however, given the maturity of the partnership and the engagement work that was taking place with Gloucestershire County Council which would also be part of the Committee, albeit without a vote, he was confident they would be able to come to sensible decisions.  In response to a query regarding transparency, confirmation was provided that meetings would be minuted.  A Member raised concern that there would only be one Member from each partner authority on the Committee and the Leader of the Council clarified there would be two Members from each partner authority, as set out in the Terms of Reference at Page No. 57, Paragraph 3.3 of the report which stated that each authority would appoint a Committee Member and a substitute – this would be the Leader and the Lead Member for Built Environment from each of the three partner authorities.  Whilst there would be up to six Members in the meeting, three of those would be substitutes and there would be one vote per authority – meetings would always require three Members with the ability to vote.  A Member raised concern that both the Leader and the Lead Member for Built Environment represented the same part of the borough and she would have liked to have seen more of a split in terms of representation on the Committee.  Another Member asked if it was appropriate for the two representatives to be from the same political party.  In response, the Leader of the Council indicated that the appointments were not party political or Ward specific and they would be representing the whole borough in their Lead Member roles.  For context, the Lead Member for Built Environment clarified that the amount of money within the CIL pot was in the region of £11m which would not be enough to fund even half of the projects and could easily be spent on a single piece of infrastructure such as a school or road.

85.11        A Member drew attention to the table within the Infrastructure List at Page No. 73 of the report and noted that £8m of the £11m within the CIL pot came from development within Tewkesbury Borough; however, Cheltenham Borough Council was asking for £4.5m to complete its work despite only providing £2.5m and she asked if that meant that money from Tewkesbury Borough’s development would essentially be going to Cheltenham Borough if that was agreed.  The Leader of the Council felt the Member was right to point out the difference in terms of who brought what to the pot and these were robust conversations for the Committee to have; however, in terms of this example, it was necessary to look at cross benefits for both parties and what Cheltenham Borough Council could bring to the table that Tewkesbury Borough Council did not have, for instance, land for infrastructure.  The Member pointed out that Tewkesbury Borough covered a huge area and she would not like to see urban need prioritised over local rural need.  The Leader of the Council pointed out that a lot of local infrastructure need should be being met by Section 106 and there was not enough money in the pot to meet all local infrastructure needs.  He was aware that developers needed to be held accountable for Section 106 with infrastructure brought forward in a more timely manner and there was more to be done in terms of ensuring the right contributions were secured from the outset, but the CIL pot was very much strategic and would be used to the benefit of the whole borough and projects which met that test.  He acknowledged there were things on the Infrastructure List currently which did not meet that test and those conversations were to be had by the Committee. 

85.12        Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          1. That establishment of a Community Infrastructure Levy Joint Committee with the Terms of Reference as set out at Appendix 1 to the report, including the pooling of strategic Community Infrastructure Levy monies by Cheltenham Borough, Gloucester City and Tewkesbury Borough Councils be APPROVED.

2. That the amended Infrastructure List, as set out at Appendix 2 to the report, be APPROVED for publication.

3.That engagement with a wide range of infrastructure providers e.g. NHS, emergency services, Environment Agency be endorsed in order to identify any wider infrastructure priorities to be considered by the Community Infrastructure Levy Joint Committee.